Advertisement
by Jardenfell » Sun Oct 18, 2015 11:05 pm
by Ever-Wandering Souls » Sun Oct 18, 2015 11:09 pm
Trotterdam wrote:Is that due to stepping on each others' toes, or due to differing skill on the players' parts?
If the players were equally skilled (and had equal intenet speeds), then I would expect that they would have approximately the same ejection counts, just with that count being lower than what the same player could (hypothetically) have achieved alone.
The large difference between the best- and worst-scoring player suggests that redundant efforts are not the sole factor, even if it's one of them. Which means that if a fifth player is added, I would expect his contribution to be closer to the average of the first four players, rather than the minimum.
The Alicorns (Equestria) wrote:Let them stay, no need to badmouth them...From our view a bunch of nations just came in, seized the delegate position, and changed a few superficial things...we play NationStates differently...there's really no reason for us to be butthurt.
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8944227
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8951258
Reploid Productions wrote:Raiders are endlessly creative
by Ever-Wandering Souls » Sun Oct 18, 2015 11:16 pm
The Alicorns (Equestria) wrote:Let them stay, no need to badmouth them...From our view a bunch of nations just came in, seized the delegate position, and changed a few superficial things...we play NationStates differently...there's really no reason for us to be butthurt.
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8944227
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8951258
Reploid Productions wrote:Raiders are endlessly creative
by Rivercastle » Sun Oct 18, 2015 11:23 pm
Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:If such an extensive sleeper network works so well, why nothate me for saying thishave more of them? You just said it was effective. I don't see this as an RO issue, or one exaggerated by RO's more so than it was prior to them.
by Klopstock » Sun Oct 18, 2015 11:25 pm
by Zemnaya Svoboda » Sun Oct 18, 2015 11:28 pm
Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:Not sure how "clean jumpers" play a role when we just got anyone who moved in as fast as possible. The chaff certainly plays a role there, those sleepers were certainly a well-played pain in the ass, and that was a trigger worthy of praise - no 15 second gap to eject people in, or 3/4 of the party late today - but I'm not entirely sure how this is a testament to Libs being impossible so much as it's a testament to the fact that those methods work, and could be repeated. Especially if this is publicized as being effective at taking out us ebvul raiders, and next time you show up with more recruits
/me braces for impact
by Cielonia » Sun Oct 18, 2015 11:38 pm
by Ever-Wandering Souls » Sun Oct 18, 2015 11:38 pm
Rivercastle wrote:Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:If such an extensive sleeper network works so well, why nothate me for saying thishave more of them? You just said it was effective. I don't see this as an RO issue, or one exaggerated by RO's more so than it was prior to them.
There's a difference. You raiders only have to place sleepers in the regions you want to invade to circumvent the issue of ROs, but we will have to place sleepers in every founderless region to pull off a similar liberation. Why should we have to put in a lot more effort just to play the game?
P.S. I was the one who got unbanned in Asia.
The Alicorns (Equestria) wrote:Let them stay, no need to badmouth them...From our view a bunch of nations just came in, seized the delegate position, and changed a few superficial things...we play NationStates differently...there's really no reason for us to be butthurt.
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8944227
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8951258
Reploid Productions wrote:Raiders are endlessly creative
by Ever-Wandering Souls » Sun Oct 18, 2015 11:43 pm
The Alicorns (Equestria) wrote:Let them stay, no need to badmouth them...From our view a bunch of nations just came in, seized the delegate position, and changed a few superficial things...we play NationStates differently...there's really no reason for us to be butthurt.
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8944227
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8951258
Reploid Productions wrote:Raiders are endlessly creative
by Flanderlion » Sun Oct 18, 2015 11:47 pm
Klopstock wrote:I'll let the hard numbers tell the story. One raider delegate and 3 raider ROs managed to eject and ban 18 defenders in 19 seconds before the update. And, both before and after it, eject and ban 27 of 29 defenders jumping in overall. We had 20 sleepers, nearly 30 people jumping, and went in down 43-40margin. And we only won 44-43. This would have been a walk under the old rules, but was a coin toss with Regional Officers. It would have been for nothing if the native delegate [had] not come online before the next update.
With all respect, defenders cannot be made to leap over a lake when raiders only have to jump over a puddle. There should be significant influence costs to adding and removing ROs. Or, at the very least, we should adopt the 72 hour delay for appointing and dismissing ROs. Regional Officers will be a paper tiger when it comes to R/D if there's not some limit on dismissing them.
EDIT: two edits for clarity as indicated.
by Cielonia » Sun Oct 18, 2015 11:52 pm
by Ever-Wandering Souls » Sun Oct 18, 2015 11:55 pm
Cielonia wrote:Locking the region would cost me a ridiculous amount of Regional Influence.
The cost of appointing a Regional Officer with border control should be huge, too. It's not enough to just increase how much it costs them to boot someone when they're mostly booting defenders who have been in the region for six seconds.
None of the invader ROs managed to boot a native. Only the delegate did, and he'd been in the region for months. If you have a delegate with enough influence to sack natives and a flock of invader ROs sacking defenders, the region is effectively invincible to anything except luck.
The Alicorns (Equestria) wrote:Let them stay, no need to badmouth them...From our view a bunch of nations just came in, seized the delegate position, and changed a few superficial things...we play NationStates differently...there's really no reason for us to be butthurt.
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8944227
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8951258
Reploid Productions wrote:Raiders are endlessly creative
by Klopstock » Mon Oct 19, 2015 12:10 am
Flanderlion wrote:You do realise if there was a delay added to removing a RO - a sleeper op that got RO would be nearly impossible to liberate. The 72 hours should be only for adding a RO, because otherwise a region held for 3 days would become unable to be liberated, or a region that had already been infiltrated for RO privileges beforehand.
by Klopstock » Mon Oct 19, 2015 12:12 am
Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:If admin wanted regions to be invincible to raiders, that could have been done long ago. They don't.
by Ever-Wandering Souls » Mon Oct 19, 2015 12:14 am
Klopstock wrote:Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:If admin wanted regions to be invincible to raiders, that could have been done long ago. They don't.
And if admin wanted invaders to rule this game, we wouldn't have founders or influence. I'm fine searching for a happy medium. I just think that balance should be 50-50.
The Alicorns (Equestria) wrote:Let them stay, no need to badmouth them...From our view a bunch of nations just came in, seized the delegate position, and changed a few superficial things...we play NationStates differently...there's really no reason for us to be butthurt.
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8944227
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8951258
Reploid Productions wrote:Raiders are endlessly creative
by The Derrak Quadrant » Mon Oct 19, 2015 12:26 am
by Ever-Wandering Souls » Mon Oct 19, 2015 12:28 am
The Alicorns (Equestria) wrote:Let them stay, no need to badmouth them...From our view a bunch of nations just came in, seized the delegate position, and changed a few superficial things...we play NationStates differently...there's really no reason for us to be butthurt.
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8944227
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8951258
Reploid Productions wrote:Raiders are endlessly creative
by Zemnaya Svoboda » Mon Oct 19, 2015 12:30 am
by Ever-Wandering Souls » Mon Oct 19, 2015 12:38 am
Zemnaya Svoboda wrote:EWS, there is the other problem that if we hadn't pulled out all the stops to get you out of there the very first update after the invasion, then you would soon have a sizeable pile and be able to also pile endorsements on the BCOs, allowing them to join in removing nations from the region.
Exactly what kind of chance would anyone have to rescue the region then?
The Alicorns (Equestria) wrote:Let them stay, no need to badmouth them...From our view a bunch of nations just came in, seized the delegate position, and changed a few superficial things...we play NationStates differently...there's really no reason for us to be butthurt.
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8944227
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8951258
Reploid Productions wrote:Raiders are endlessly creative
by Karputsk » Mon Oct 19, 2015 12:57 am
Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:Zemnaya Svoboda wrote:EWS, there is the other problem that if we hadn't pulled out all the stops to get you out of there the very first update after the invasion, then you would soon have a sizeable pile and be able to also pile endorsements on the BCOs, allowing them to join in removing nations from the region.
Exactly what kind of chance would anyone have to rescue the region then?
And if any one of the 3-4 people I either physically talked to or know for a fact were online and chose for one reason or another not to take a few seconds to deploy had done so, we'd be having a different conversation right now. Or on the other end, if a surprising number of people hadn't made a last-ditch effort to dig through every contact we had, while stepping around ideological issues, out of date contacts, troops occupied in osi, and so forth, we'd still be down at 29 e and it would have been a blowout as you wish. Both sides pulled out all stops, yours won by a bit this time. Even if this shot had failed, we'd likely have been unable to remove any more nations than we already did, natives would have had more time to get on, our endocount was unlikely to grow much without asking DEN to put Cali at risky levels, and another run or two would have spelled the end in a day. I'd say this was more fair a fight than we've seen in a while.
by Ever-Wandering Souls » Mon Oct 19, 2015 12:59 am
Karputsk wrote:Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:
And if any one of the 3-4 people I either physically talked to or know for a fact were online and chose for one reason or another not to take a few seconds to deploy had done so, we'd be having a different conversation right now. Or on the other end, if a surprising number of people hadn't made a last-ditch effort to dig through every contact we had, while stepping around ideological issues, out of date contacts, troops occupied in osi, and so forth, we'd still be down at 29 e and it would have been a blowout as you wish. Both sides pulled out all stops, yours won by a bit this time. Even if this shot had failed, we'd likely have been unable to remove any more nations than we already did, natives would have had more time to get on, our endocount was unlikely to grow much without asking DEN to put Cali at risky levels, and another run or two would have spelled the end in a day. I'd say this was more fair a fight than we've seen in a while.
Exactly. You guys had several obstacles preventing you from deploying at full strength (California, Osiris) and yet we had every advantage we could have hoped for - and we just managed it, just. You need only look at Cora's news feed in NSGP to realise just how lucky we were in pulling this off.
If either Osiris or California weren't issues for you guys then you would have comprehensively smashed us. I mean, we might have tried the jump because we would have made the margin considerably smaller but with the rate of banjection we couldn't hope to compete without an unrealistic numbers advantage.
We're not saying you guys don't work hard or fight for every WA you get (as we do), but the fact is we need more WAs, at a specific time, on shorter notice, against active and professional opposition. There is no doubting that Defenders have the more difficult task at the moment.
The Alicorns (Equestria) wrote:Let them stay, no need to badmouth them...From our view a bunch of nations just came in, seized the delegate position, and changed a few superficial things...we play NationStates differently...there's really no reason for us to be butthurt.
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8944227
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8951258
Reploid Productions wrote:Raiders are endlessly creative
by Cielonia » Mon Oct 19, 2015 1:23 am
by Kazmr » Mon Oct 19, 2015 1:58 am
by Ever-Wandering Souls » Mon Oct 19, 2015 2:03 am
The Alicorns (Equestria) wrote:Let them stay, no need to badmouth them...From our view a bunch of nations just came in, seized the delegate position, and changed a few superficial things...we play NationStates differently...there's really no reason for us to be butthurt.
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8944227
http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=8951258
Reploid Productions wrote:Raiders are endlessly creative
by Kazmr » Mon Oct 19, 2015 2:26 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Giovanniland, Lower Antegria
Advertisement